Society depends upon the quality of the individual; the better the individual, the better society.

Society also heavily depends on the communication, association, and general interactive skills between individuals which don't necessarily come from the quality of the individual. Furthermore what applies to the individual does not necessarily apply to a group of individuals. I am of the opinion that when it comes to society, adding up the individual parts doesn't give you the whole. Just having more than one individual adds a whole new dimension to the group concept.

I find it funny that you would post this:

Originally Posted by Kimpatsu

The majority of westerners don't understand that budo is a means to personal self-enlightenment...

followed by this:

Originally Posted by Kimpatsu

I asked the author of one of the books to his face whether the Japanese would be equally happy, and he pulled a face and admitted "Probably not... but they should be!"

According to your expert source, doesn't really seem like the majority of Japanese would understand it either...

Society also heavily depends on the communication, association, and general interactive skills between individuals which don't necessarily come from the quality of the individual. Furthermore what applies to the individual does not necessarily apply to a group of individuals. I am of the opinion that when it comes to society, adding up the individual parts doesn't give you the whole. Just having more than one individual adds a whole new dimension to the group concept.

The day you can go to the toilet for me, you might have a case, but until then, the qualty of the individual is definitely whats sums up society. This requirement to be more aware of the fact can be summarised as "Live half for yourself and half for others".

Originally Posted by EternalRage

I find it funny that you would post this:

followed by this:

According to your expert source, doesn't really seem like the majority of Japanese would understand it either...

The day you can go to the toilet for me, you might have a case, but until then, the qualty of the individual is definitely whats sums up society. This requirement to be more aware of the fact can be summarised as "Live half for yourself and half for others".

Didn't say quality of individuals ISN'T a factor, just don't think its the predominant one. Wouldn't and didn't say that the interactions between individuals is the predominant factor either. I just think that saying, "Oh we gonna pump out great ethical individuals and this should make society better" is non sequitor.

Isn't that the point I was making,,,? :icon_roll

Ok, so then you're saying that NOBODY really gets budo? I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with the original post... too much Japanese semantics going on here.

One of the problems with the misuse of "spiritual" in this context is, IMO, because the English-language Shorinji Kempo website was created by an English-speaking Japanese, without consulting a native speaker. The actual Japanese reads, "shinshin tomo wo kitaeru", lit., "to forge both mind and body", but because the dictionary gives the definition of shin/kokoro as "spirit", ratyher than "mind", the creator stuck that in. The nuance is too different, however.
That said, the definition of budo is as follows: "do" is "the way", and "bu" breaks down to the number two, representing two people, the verb "to stop", and a spear, which represents fighting. IOW, it's the way two people stop fighting; i.e., one should never exacerbate a onflict, but always use the minimum force necessary to achieve the required goal of avoiding harm (as opposed to inflicting it).
Interestingly, the last three Japanese books on budo that I read (one by a Shorinji Kenshi, the other two by practitioners of different disciplines) all make the argument that budo is meant as a path of self-enlightenment, and that we should be equally happy if sensei came in one day and announced, "right, from now on, no more techniques. We just medidate for two hours each class", and that if we're not equally happy as we would be learning techniques, then we don't get budo. I asked the author of one of the books to his face whether the Japanese would be equally happy, and he pulled a face and admitted "Probably not... but they should be!"

Budo = 武 道
Bujutsu = 武 術

You made the following statement: "bu" breaks down to the number two, representing two people, the verb "to stop", and a spear, which represents fighting. IOW, it's the way two people stop fighting.

First, this method of deriving the 'real' meaning of a term by breaking down kanji according to its radicals and interpreting their interrelatinship is suspect and in this case, manipulative.

Second the BU in Budo is the same as the BU in Bujutsu, which would then imply that Bujutsu means, according to your logic, a technique to stop two people from fighthing. Not even the most revisionist rendering of the term can yield that reading with any degree of historical integrity.

If you don't like the term "spiritual" that's fine, I can use your term "self-enlightenment".

It's a rather odd term in that "enlightenment" entered the lexicon from Buddhism, in which the "self", as an independantly substantiallly exisiting enitity is said to be a delusion and enlightenment is defined, in part, as overcoming the ignorant belief in that self.

Anywho, you wrote that the books that you read recently confirmed that "budo is meant as a path of self-enlightenment".

Whether that statement is factually correct, it leads to Bullshido.

If it is not factually correct, the statement itself is Bullshido because it claims that Budo is meant as a path of self-enlightenment, when it is not.

If it is factually correct, then Budo itself is Bullshido and amounts to a watered-down latter-day imitation of the practices of a bygone era overlaid with quasi-Buddhist philosophical ideas.

Didn't say quality of individuals ISN'T a factor, just don't think its the predominant one. Wouldn't and didn't say that the interactions between individuals is the predominant factor either. I just think that saying, "Oh we gonna pump out great ethical individuals and this should make society better" is non sequitor.

If you hink that the individual as the basis for improving society is a non sequitur, I'll commit the crimes and you can go to prison for them.

Originally Posted by EternalRage

Ok, so then you're saying that NOBODY really gets budo? I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with the original post... too much Japanese semantics going on here.

I'm not saying anything. I'm telling you the dichotomy faced by the conservatives in Japanese budo. I also recommend that you read the books I cited above.

If you hink that the individual as the basis for improving society is a non sequitur, I'll commit the crimes and you can go to prison for them.

I already said that I don't think of the quality of the individual as the predominating factor, I never said that it wasn't a factor period. And your statement about committing crimes is rather extreme don't you think? Because the converse - send individuals who do crimes to jail and through rehabilitory programs to try and improve their "qualities as individuals" - doesn't really work either. I'm saying that both statements, plus your statement that puts individual quality at the top of the list for improving society, don't take into consideration many, many other factors that make a society what it is.

I'm not saying anything. I'm telling you the dichotomy faced by the conservatives in Japanese budo. I also recommend that you read the books I cited above.

I really have no interest in this subject... read an article in Black Belt mag about the "true meaning of budo" and all the author did was dance in circles similar to the ones you are all waltzing in now. I was only interested in this little tidbit that you wrote about individuals and society. Sorry to have dragged you out on a tangent, please by all means return to your original discussion before they move on to the foxtrot...